• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

DARPA Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM)

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,234
Reaction score
407
marauder2048 said:
Great Video. Given how it leaps out with the ASROC booster, I'm thinking the oft-proposed Mk. 72 booster impulse might actually be excessive for that airframe.
Probably why they didn't use Tomahawks either.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,066
Reaction score
48
They used the ASROC booster because there are surplus to use, and they wanted plenty of performance margin. Tomahawk's booster is designed around the constraints of the space left in a 21' tube after a missile is filling 18' of its length, performance-wise it's actually a bit more sedate than the ASROC's.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,234
Reaction score
407
Moose said:
They used the ASROC booster because there are surplus to use, and they wanted plenty of performance margin. Tomahawk's booster is designed around the constraints of the space left in a 21' tube after a missile is filling 18' of its length, performance-wise it's actually a bit more sedate than the ASROC's.
Do you have any information on their respective burn profiles? Tomahawk is quite a bit heavier than JASSM so, all else being equal, it's going to come out of the cell slower than LRASM.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
77
Moose said:
They used the ASROC booster because there are surplus to use, and they wanted plenty of performance margin. Tomahawk's booster is designed around the constraints of the space left in a 21' tube after a missile is filling 18' of its length, performance-wise it's actually a bit more sedate than the ASROC's.
I had just assumed that since ASROC was a Lockheed product that LM had higher fidelity interface, mechanical and thermal loads data for the ASROC booster.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,066
Reaction score
48
marauder2048 said:
Moose said:
They used the ASROC booster because there are surplus to use, and they wanted plenty of performance margin. Tomahawk's booster is designed around the constraints of the space left in a 21' tube after a missile is filling 18' of its length, performance-wise it's actually a bit more sedate than the ASROC's.
I had just assumed that since ASROC was a Lockheed product that LM had higher fidelity interface, mechanical and thermal loads data for the ASROC booster.
Even If they didn't make VLA, I think they still would have picked this motor for the tests.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,066
Reaction score
48
sferrin said:
Moose said:
They used the ASROC booster because there are surplus to use, and they wanted plenty of performance margin. Tomahawk's booster is designed around the constraints of the space left in a 21' tube after a missile is filling 18' of its length, performance-wise it's actually a bit more sedate than the ASROC's.
Do you have any information on their respective burn profiles? Tomahawk is quite a bit heavier than JASSM so, all else being equal, it's going to come out of the cell slower than LRASM.
Working off older, unclassified info: Tomahawk's bespoke booster is good for 6000 lbs for 12 seconds. The VLA's Mk114 is a dual-pulse motor, so it's not quiet apples to apples, the launch pulse is about 5 seconds of about 11000 lbs.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
Air Force charts first step of JASSM-ER development effort

The Air Force plans to award a five-year contract to combine multiple follow-on efforts for the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile's extended-range variant, in order to address outdated parts of Lockheed Martin's JASSM-ER and add new capabilities for future production lots.

The service said in a May 16 sources-sought notice, "the weapon's electronics, hardware, and operational flight software changes must be holistically approached to leverage design, engineering, and test activities" at a system level. The notice tells companies to contact Lockheed about subcontracting opportunities.

In a May 18 email from a spokeswoman, Jason Denney, Lockheed's long-range strike systems program director, said the notice marks the start of a development effort to improve JASSM-ER performance.

"Lockheed Martin has already started looking at the engineering and aerodynamic improvements for future wing designs to support increased range," Denney wrote. "Additional studies, testing, and qualification will include software and hardware upgrades, as well as a new missile control unit to support the missile upgrades."

"Lockheed Martin has a dedicated development team working this project, providing uninterrupted production support at all levels," he added.

According to the sources-sought notice, the "group one" contract for completely assembled missiles includes systems engineering and program changes to streamline and phase design, development, integration, testing and verification of new components and subsystems for JASSM-ER's baseline electronics, hardware, firmware and operational flight software.

"Group one shall also include preparation for final [all-up-round] integration, system-level ground and flight testing, and qualification," the Air Force notice stated. "This effort shall concurrently mature a new missile control unit, new wings and chine, and the [anti-jam GPS] receiver, and necessary hardware and infrastructure to support group one production cut-in."

New hardware and software will be added to the missiles in the "earliest production lot possible," Denney said. Last month, the company negotiated a price for Lot 15, which will include 360 JASSM-ER units, Inside the Air Force previously reported.

Alan Jackson, vice president of strike systems at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, told ITAF a "rather dramatic" increase in JASSM-ER range could be delivered at a date "not too far in the future" but did not provide a figure.

Last October, Denney told ITAF Lockheed is pursuing a block upgrade program to improve range, GPS-denial, survivability and payload capabilities. The company is experimenting with laminar flow wings, which allow for uninterrupted airflow without friction, to boost JASSM-ER's farther than its current range of more than 500 nautical miles. In addition to several survivability initiatives, Lockheed is exploring ground- and star-based navigational techniques and inertial measurement unit improvements that could kick in if the guided missile loses its GPS connection. JASSM could also be modified to carry payloads like other missiles or small unmanned aircraft instead of its 1,000-pound warhead.

JASSM-ER is flown on the B-1B, was flight-tested on the F-15 earlier this year, and is planned to move to the B-52 later in 2017, to the F-16 in 2018 and later to the B-2. The Air Force plans to buy 2,034 JASSM and 2,866 JASSM-ER for $7.2 billion over the life of the program, Inside Defense previously reported.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,234
Reaction score
407
How about a stretch to Tomahawk length so a VLS version would fill a Mk41 cell? (Just use a Tomahawk booster instead of a VL-ASROC booster.)

 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,063
Reaction score
213
Lockheed Gets LRASM Contract

The Air Force on Tuesday awarded Lockheed Martin $86.5 million for long-range, anti-ship missile production. The award is for 23 of the missiles, with work expected to be completed by Sept. 29, 2019. This contract modification builds on a $321.8 million contract from May 2016 to develop and test the missile, which is a variant of the Air Force’s AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile. That contract called for the missile to be fielded on the B-1B in 2019 and the Navy’s F/A-18 in 2020. —Brian Everstine

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/navy-warships-get-new-heavy-missile-2500-lb-lrasm/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54684139&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--Dg6taZVo9q1nb-37JzZ87B-L-zwkuDz894lI-Z5g-BwvWUzpfshj9229-YHqA9_0PWFZqUYGqS_yicLkc4H0Ba2X7kg&_hsmi=54684139
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
sferrin said:
How about a stretch to Tomahawk length so a VLS version would fill a Mk41 cell? (Just use a Tomahawk booster instead of a VL-ASROC booster.)

Could be one of the contenders for the NGLAW..or at least an interim weapon if an even better capability is desired for that program.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
Lockheed Fires Lrasm From New Deck-Mounted Launcher

Lockheed has also been developing a heavier, next-generation version as a potential replacement for the Tomahawk cruise missile under the Navy’s Next Generation Land Attack Weapon program.

“Lockheed Martin’s investment into the surface-launch capability is to offer the surface Navy options for its distributed lethality initiative,” the company says. “[We] hope to demonstrate the surface launch weapon’s flexibility through future testing, and we believe that it offers the best weapon for taking back the sea.”
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
527
Reaction score
4
I guess I am glad that the LRASM is getting further development, but the Breaking Defense article side-steps a problem. The JASSM LRASM was the low-risk option after the ASALM couldn't be cheaply resurrected. I worry that development into high-speed weapons will be delayed by the near term developments of the LRASM, rather than pursuing both at the same time.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
NGLAW seems to be the only ship launched anti-surface weapon on the horizon and it is not clear whether that will be subsonic or supersonic. OASuW/Increment 2 is now an air launched weapon. From air launched the Navy will do well to develop or procure something for the internal bays of the F-35C, and the FA-XX while also placing follow-up orders for LRASM while developing future capabilities. I don't think there is willingness to commit a lot of funding for something like the LRASM-B.

NGSC includes capabilities for both the air- launched OASuW Increment 2 capabilities to counter long-term anti-surface warfare threats, and a surface and sub-surface-launched NGLAW to initially complement, and then replace, current land attack cruise missile weapon systems.

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Grosklags-Davis-Manazir_04-20-16.pdf
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
34
What about an anti-ship missile based on the Joint Strike Missile? That has the size that would enable it to fit inside the internal bay's for both the F-35C and FA-XX.
 

gTg

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
You got that backwards! Joint Strike Missile is a development of the Naval Strike Missile.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
FighterJock said:
What about an anti-ship missile based on the Joint Strike Missile? That has the size that would enable it to fit inside the internal bay's for both the F-35C and FA-XX.
I assume if that is the direction the Navy plans to go with OASuW Inc.2 Raytheon would likely offer a JSM variant extending their relationship with Kongsberg on the NSM.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
150
Raytheon and Kongsberg have already started looking into VLS integration for JSM, presumably to position JSM for OASuW Inc 2. I don't think anyone expects the NSM angled box launchers proposed for the LCS Over-the-Horizon Attack Missile application to be acceptable for OASuW.

I think you'd need to stretch JSM to compete with LRASM, Tomahawk, and Harpoon Block II Plus on range.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
Range, Warhead and multi-mode guidance are areas where the LRASM is superior. NSM is not in the same class. Unless it offered an active seeker or some other feature not found on the LRASM, I really don't see how it stands a chance.

VLS integration for JSM, presumably to position JSM for OASuW Inc 2.
Increment 2 is for an air launched weapon (based on the latest from the USN), future anti surface capability seems to have been transitioned to the NGLAW effort.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
150
bring_it_on said:
Increment 2 is for an air launched weapon (based on the latest from the USN), future anti surface capability seems to have been transitioned to the NGLAW effort.
OK, that changed. Increment 2 was supposed to be multi-platform at one point, wasn't it?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
Yes I believe that this was the original plan. However, if you read the senate testimony I posted on the last page they now appear to be following two programs, the Inc. 2 and the NGLAW with the former being an air launched weapon and the latter a Tomahawk replacement.
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
527
Reaction score
4
It would make almost too much sense for the US Navy to buy the JSM for F-35 internal carriage, while saving development dollars for an improved LRASM or Tomahawk replacement.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
150
bring_it_on said:
Yes I believe that this was the original plan. However, if you read the senate testimony I posted on the last page they now appear to be following two programs, the Inc. 2 and the NGLAW with the former being an air launched weapon and the latter a Tomahawk replacement.
Ugh, they're making this really confusing (as usual)

So, we have the following:

OASuW Increment 1: air-launched LRASM (in early procurement)
OASwW increment 2: air-launched anti-ship missile (to be determined)
NGLAW: sub-/surface-launched Tomahawk replacement, with both land attack and "maritime threats" capability. (also to be determined , probably not the same airframe or propulsion as OASuW Inc. 2.)

There's a striking lack of the phrase "anti-ship" in the NGLAW description (especially considering that they do use the term explicitly in the discussion of OASuW). The "maritime threat" wording they've used instead leaves room for NGLAW to be usable against ships in port and against anti-access threats like shore-based SSM batteries without being able to actually attack ships at sea. And earlier they say "NGLAW to initially complement, and then replace, current land attack cruise missile weapon systems."

I'm not getting warm fuzzies about the prospects for NGLAW to include an actual at-sea anti-ship capability here.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
By the time the NGLAW enters into advanced development, the baseline TLAM variant would have an anti ship capability (that's the plan) so its quite likely that the Navy will want to retain that at the very minimum.
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
527
Reaction score
4
bring_it_on said:
By the time the NGLAW enters into advanced development, the baseline TLAM variant would have an anti ship capability (that's the plan) so its quite likely that the Navy will want to retain that at the very minimum.
I'm not totally certain, because the NGLAW will certainly have much greater range the LRASM, close to a Tomahawk 1000nm with a >1000lb warhead. A missile with that range will have to be near hypersonic to be an effective anti-ship weapon. It is more likely that the NGLAW will be able to hit ships like the current Tomahawk, but only in a situation of total electronic dominance and a quite passive target.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
150
bring_it_on said:
By the time the NGLAW enters into advanced development, the baseline TLAM variant would have an anti ship capability (that's the plan) so its quite likely that the Navy will want to retain that at the very minimum.
While the TLAM antiship capability looks interesting, it's so dependent on off-board targeting that it may not be viable in a lot of environments. I'd be much happier with a self-contained missile, at least in the terminal phase.

Making OASuW Inc 2 aircraft-only seems like a really odd penny-pinching choice, given that several of the contenders are already VLS-compatible.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
Anything long range would require some third party help and/or more sophisticated ESM capability. I think some of this is in the Tomahawk roadmap but most of it will be in the NGLAW. Adding the survivability of the JASSM, smartness of the LRASM to the reach of the TLAM is a good place to start.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
150
Oh, absolutely you want connectivity for mid-flight course updates and so forth. But as I understand it, the TLAM moving-target-at-sea capability requires the data link through end-game, which isn't ideal. Extending the TLAM's moving ship capability to NGLAW is a logical extension of giving NGLAW the ability to engage relocatable targets on land. But to make NGLAW a true anti-ship missile with an autonomous end-game comparable to LRASM means integrating a whole new seeker. The alternative is to use OASuW Inc 2 for ships as an anti-ship weapon. Which is cheaper and faster -- VLS-qualifying OASuW Inc 2 or integrating an anti-ship seeker for NGLAW?

Sadly, I think the Navy is looking to take option 3: no true autonomous anti-ship missile for most ships.

The other option is to expand the LCS Over-the-Horizon missile program and make it VLS compatible.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
That is the case with the current TLAM (MTC). But, they do have a multi-mode seeker that they want to bring in the 2020s (MST) to enhance the maritime strike capability.
 

Attachments

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
77
OASuW Inc 2 looks, as of the FY18 budget, to be deferred indefinitely.

The Navy was able to put together the funds for a AGM-154C-1 extended range demo including tweaks for midcourse/endgame perf optimization

Hopefully, that turns into a program of record.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
150
marauder2048 said:
OASuW Inc 2 looks, as of the FY18 budget, to be deferred indefinitely.

The Navy was able to put together the funds for a AGM-154C-1 extended range demo including tweaks for midcourse/endgame perf optimization

Hopefully, that turns into a program of record.
So what would be the plan -- limited numbers of LRASM bought under OASuW Inc 1 for land-based aircraft like the B-1 and the lighter, shorter-ranged JSOW-ER for carrier aircraft where weight is more critical? Where does Harpoon Block II+ fit?

And what the heck do we do for the surface ships?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,234
Reaction score
407
marauder2048 said:
OASuW Inc 2 looks, as of the FY18 budget, to be deferred indefinitely.
I. Am. Shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,234
Reaction score
407
TomS said:
And what the heck do we do for the surface ships?
Don't talk about it and pretend it's not an issue. Business as usual that is.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
TomS said:
So what would be the plan -- limited numbers of LRASM bought under OASuW Inc 1 for land-based aircraft like the B-1 and the lighter, shorter-ranged JSOW-ER for carrier aircraft where weight is more critical? Where does Harpoon Block II+ fit?
LRASM buy could be extended beyond the small batch that the USAF and USN are acquiring. It is produced on the JASSM/JASSM-ER production line so they have that option for a number of years still.

And what the heck do we do for the surface ships?
Right now, TLAM growth and eventually NGLAW and possibly look to integrate the LRASM.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,063
Reaction score
213
https://news.usni.org/2017/08/18/lrasm-succeeds-sea-b-1b-bomber-tactical-launch-test
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
370
Reaction score
6
8. Same as JASSM. So 24 total internal carriage.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
totoro said:
What are the chances that we will see usn use lrasm used from mk41 vls by 2022 or so?
Looks unlikely. The OASuW Increment 2 will now address air launched requirements only. It is likely that the US Navy will continue to fund the Tomahawk seeker upgrade for the early 2020s and use it for anti-ship purposes until the Next Generation Land Attack Weapon is developed.

https://news.usni.org/2017/08/16/navy-raytheon-close-finalizing-maritime-strike-tomahawk-missile-deal
 
Top